NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 234 OF 2012
[Against the order dated 28.07.2011 in First Appeal No. 951 of 2009 of the
A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad]
M/s Carpenters Classic India (P) Ltd.
Unit No. 8-2-596/V/G-A, Ground Floor
IVRCL Towers, Road No. 10
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34
Through its Regional Manager … Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Suma Reddy
W/o Shri R.G. Bhaskar Reddy
Plot No. 69/B, Nav Nirman Nagar
Road No. 71, Jublee Hills
Hyderabad … Respondent
Before :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Milan Deep Singh, Advocate
Pronounced on : 29th March, 2012
O R D E R
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
1. M/s Carpenters Classic India (P) Ltd., who are in the business of supply and installation of modular kitchens, are aggrieved that despite the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Hyderabad (District Forum for short) having held that they had supplied the modular kitchen of the specification ordered by the respondent/complainant and also had executed the installation in time and dismissed the complaint; the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (State Commission for short) has set aside the said well-reasoned order of the District Forum and directed them to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- together with cost of Rs.2000/-, holding that not only the modular kitchen was installed beyond the stipulated period but also that in one case the equipment did not conform to the specification of the colour scheme ordered by the respondent/complainant. Through this revision, the petitioner, the service provider, seeks to assail the order of the State Commission.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant had ordered for supply and installation of two Vesta brand modular kitchens in the two houses owned by her. The cost of these modular kitchens was negotiated at Rs.5,15,000/-. The respondent/ complainant had ordered for one modular kitchen of Start-Rovera Moro/Bianco Model/Finish with the carcass of Matt White and the other was to be Ginger Prugna/Grigio Cordo, Ciligeo carcass. The installation as per the agreement entered into between the parties was to be completed within 120 days from the date of the final payment. The case of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum was that the petitioner had not only failed to installed the modular kitchen within the agreed period of 120 days from the date of the final payment which was 17th of July, 2007 but it had also failed to provide the specified modular kitchen for the second house. The colour scheme selected by the respondent/complainant was not the same as painted by the petitioner/opposite party. The complaint had been contested by the petitioner before the District Forum, who, as stated above, did not find any merit in the complaint and dismissed the same. The State Commission on the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant, however, found that the District Forum had misdirected itself in believing that the petitioner had supplied the modular kitchen as ordered by the respondent/complainant and that too in time. The District Forum appears to have been swayed by the allegation of the petitioner that the husband of the respondent/complainant had tried to intimidate the petitioner’s employees, for which criminal complaints had been filed by both the parties. However, on a proper analysis of the terms of the agreement and the facts with regard to the supply and installation of the modular kitchen, the State Commission found that there indeed has been deficiency on part of the petitioner in providing the appropriate modular kitchen and in installing the same in time and, therefore, has awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with a cost of Rs.2000/-.
3. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the well-reasoned order of the District Forum has been set aside by the State Commission without properly appreciating that there was no evidence on record to show that there was any defect or change in the colour of the second modular kitchen supplied by the petitioner. He has also referred to the terms of the agreement, as per which the respondent/complainant was required to have filed within eight days the representation if the goods supplied were found to be defective from the original order. Learned counsel also contends that the State Commission ought to have considered that the husband of the respondent/complainant entered into a scuffle with the employees of the petitioner.
4. We have noted the above contentions only to be rejected for the simple reason that the State Commission has in a very well-reasoned order correctly held that there was some deficiency on part of the petitioner/service provider and has awarded a very modest compensation of Rs.30,000/- and that too without imposing any interest, which, in our view, is not only appropriate but fully justified.
5. In view of the above, the order of the State Commission warrants no interference and the revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
Sd/-
( R. C. JAIN, J. )
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK)
(MEMBER)
Mukesh
